To link to the entire object, paste this link in email, IM or documentTo embed the entire object, paste this HTML in websiteTo link to this page, paste this link in email, IM or documentTo embed this page, paste this HTML in website

ANNUAL REPORT FOR 2004
South Fork Big Pine Creek Stream Mitigation Site
(Charles/McGinnis Site)
Madison County
WBS Element 32573.4.1
TIP No. A-10WM
Prepared By:
Office of Natural Environment & Roadside Environmental Unit
North Carolina Department of Transportation
January 2005
Summary
The following report summarizes the stream monitoring activities that have occurred during
the Year 2004 at the Charles/McGinnis Site in Madison County. This site was constructed
in 1999 by the North Carolina Wildlife Resources Commission (NCWRC). This report
provides the monitoring results for the second formal year of monitoring (Year 2004);
however, it is actually the fifth year since construction.
Based on the overall conclusions of monitoring along South Fork Big Pine Creek, the
Charles/McGinnis Site has not met the required monitoring protocols for the second year of
monitoring. Areas of severe bank scour and erosion exist as a result of several large storm
events. These areas should be assessed by the Mitigation Review Team to determine if
remedial actions are warranted.
Based on information obtained from the U.S. Geological Survey (USGS), the Charles/
McGinnis Site has experienced more than ten bankfull events between 1999 and 2004, well
beyond the protocols required for hydrologic monitoring. However, the stream has
experienced de-stabilization throughout several sections of the reach. Vegetative success
criteria, however, have been met for the second year of monitoring. No biological sampling
has been conducted to date. It is unknown whether or not this sampling will be conducted
as part of overall monitoring activities.
The extent of yearly monitoring activities at the Charles/McGinnis Site will be dependent on
the decisions made by Mitigation Review Team during the fall/winter 2004 meeting.
1.0 INTRODUCTION
1.1 Project Description
The following report summarizes the stream monitoring activities that have occurred during
the Year 2004 at the Charles/McGinnis Site. The site is situated along South Fork Big Pine
Creek, immediately west of Big Pine Road (SR 1158) in the southwestern portion of
Madison County (Figure 1). It is approximately 16 miles (25.6 kilometers) west-southwest of
Mars Hill and nearly 18 miles (28.8 kilometers) northwest of Asheville. The Charles/
McGinnis Site was constructed as one of four projects to provide mitigation for stream
impacts associated with Transportation Improvement Program (TIP) Project No. A-10 in
Madison County.
This mitigation project covers approximately 1,100 linear feet of South Fork Big Pine Creek.
It was designed and constructed in 1999 by the North Carolina Wildlife Resources
Commission (NCWRC). Stream restoration involved construction of rock vanes for
stabilization purposes, installing livestock management practices, and re-vegetation of the
streambanks with native species. During the winter of 2000, the site was extensively planted
with live stakes and bare rooted trees.
1.2 Purpose
According to the as-built report (NCWRC, 2000), the objectives at this mitigation site were
to improve water quality, riparian quality and stability, and fisheries habitat associated with
South Fork Big Pine Creek. The following objectives were proposed:
♦ Increasing the floodplain area and stabilizing the bankfull elevations along the reach;
♦ Installing boulder vanes, log vanes, or rootwads along the stream to reduce overall
erosion and enhance/improve fish habitat;
♦ Installing small vortex weirs to create pool habitat in sections of long riffles;
♦ Sloping and vegetating the streambanks to provide more resistance to flooding; and
♦ Planting of native trees, shrubs, and ground cover to stabilize the banks, shade the
stream, and improve wildlife cover and food.
The majority of these objectives were completed by reshaping the stream banks to a more
stable cross-sectional profile. Areas of high bank stress were protected using rootwads, coir
logs, and vanes. The riparian zone was planted with native vegetation. No vortex weirs or
cross vanes however, were installed to create pool habitat.
Successful stream mitigation is demonstrated by a stable channel that does not aggrade or
degrade over time. It is also demonstrated by reduced erosion rates, the permanent
establishment of native vegetation, and bed features consistent with the design stream type.
Vegetation survival is based on federal guidelines denoting success criteria for wetland
mitigation. Results of stream monitoring conducted during the 2004 growing season at the
Charles/McGinnis Site are included in this report.
Activities in 2004 reflect the second formal year of monitoring following the restoration
efforts; however, it is the fifth year since construction. Included in this report are analyses
on stability (primarily the longitudinal profile and cross sections), vegetative monitoring
results, and site photographs. Monitoring activities were conducted twice during 2004 due
to heavy rain events and subsequent flooding encountered during July. The data for the May
and August monitoring is presented for comparison purposes.
1.3 Project History
The effort to provide stream mitigation for TIP No. A-10 began in 1996 with a
Memorandum of Agreement (MOA) between the North Carolina Department of
Transportation (NCDOT) with the NCWRC. The MOA was to provide 25,000 feet of
mitigation for 9,990 feet of jurisdictional stream impacts. Subsequent amendments to the
MOA were made to provide mitigation for additional stream impacts from TIP No. A-10.
These amendments resulted in a total mitigation of over 26,000 feet.
The NCDOT worked with representatives from the NCWRC, U.S. Army Corps of
Engineers, North Carolina Division of Water Quality, U.S. Environmental Protection
Agency, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Natural Resources Conservation Service and
Madison County Soil and Water Conservation District on a Mitigation Review Team. The
purpose of the team was to develop criteria and policies for selecting stream reaches for
mitigation.
The Charles/McGinnis Site was one of the sites selected by the Mitigation Review Team to
provide compensatory mitigation for TIP No. A-10. The mitigation plan for this mitigation
site was developed during 1998 and approved by the team. The NCWRC implemented the
project in 1999.
August 1999 Site grading commenced
August 1999 Site Planted with Native Perennial Seed Mix
January 2000 Site Planted with Live Stakes and Bare Rooted Trees
July 2000 NCWRC Site Review to Evaluate Vegetation
June – July 2003 Stream Channel Monitoring (1 yr.)
June – July 2003 Vegetation Monitoring (1 yr.)
May/June 2004 Stream Channel Monitoring (2 yr.)
May 2004 Vegetation Monitoring (2 yr.)
August 2004 Additional Stream Channel Monitoring (2 yr.)
following “above-bankfull” events.
During July of 2004, the Charles/McGinnis Site experienced heavy rains that caused South
Fork Big Pine Creek to reach stages above bankfull. The overall event worsened the existing
scour and erosion taking place along the stream. As a result, several sections of the stream
remain undercut and unstable. Based on conversations with the NCWRC, remedial actions
have been proposed during the fall/winter of 2004; however, the Mitigation Review Team
will ultimately decide on the degree of effort, timing, and extent of future monitoring
required at this site.
1.4 Debit Ledger
The entire Charles/McGinnis Site was used for TIP No. A-10 to compensate for
unavoidable stream impacts related with roadway construction. This project generated 1,100
linear feet of stream credits.
2.0 STREAM ASSESSMENT
2.1 Success Criteria
The success criterion, as defined by the Mitigation Site Monitoring Protocol for the
NCWRC/NCDOT Mitigation Program (2003), evaluates channel stability and
improvements to fish habitat. Specifically, this evaluation includes all or a combination of
the following parameters: channel stability, erosion control, seeding, woody vegetation, and
overall response of fish and invertebrate populations for stream mitigation projects. This is
to be accomplished using photo reference sites, stream dimension and profile, survival of
planted vegetation, and direct sampling of important populations. The chart provided below
further details the criteria used to evaluate success or failure at these mitigation sites.
NCWRC/ NCDOT Mitigation Monitoring Criteria
Measurement Success (requires no action) Failure Action
Photo Reference Sites
Longitudinal
Photos
Lateral Photos
No significant* aggradation,
degradation, or erosion
Significant* aggradation,
degradation, or erosion
When significant*
aggradation, degradation or
erosion occurs, remedial
actions will be undertaken.
Channel Stability
Cross-Sections
Longitudinal
Profiles
Pebble Counts
Minimal evidence of instability
(down-cutting, deposition,
erosion, decrease in particle size)
Significant* evidence of
instability
When significant* evidence
of instability occurs,
remedial actions will be
undertaken.
Plant Survival
Survival Plots >75% coverage in Photo Plots <75% coverage in Photo Plots
Stake Counts >80% survival of stakes, 4/m2 <80% survival of stakes, 4/m2
Tree Counts
>80% survival of bare-rooted
trees
<80% survival of bare-rooted
trees
Areas of less than 75%
coverage will be re-seeded
and/or fertilized, live stakes
and bare-rooted trees will
be replanted to achieve
>80% survival.
Biological Indicators (only used for projects with potential to make watershed level changes)
Invertebrate Pop.
Fish Populations
Population measures remain to
same or improve
Population measures indicate a
negative trend
Reasons for failure will be
evaluted and remedial
action plans developed and
implemented.
Overall success or failure will be based on success of 3 of the 4 criteria.
*Significance or subjective determinations of success will be determined by a majority decision of the Mitigation Review Team
Federal guidelines for stream mitigation are relatively consistent with those protocols
established by the NCWRC and NCDOT. These guidelines include the following main
parameters: no less than two bankfull events for the five-year monitoring period, reference
photos, plant survivability analyses, channel stability analyses, and biological data if
specifically required by permit conditions (USACE, 2003). This report addresses all of the
above mentioned parameters for both the NCWRC/NCDOT protocols and federal
guidelines aside from shading and biological data, which was not required at this site.
Natural streams are dynamic systems that are in a constant state of change. Longitudinal
profile and cross section surveys will differ from year to year based on changes in the
watershed. Natural channel stability is achieved by allowing the stream to develop a proper
dimension, pattern, and profile such that, over time, channel features are maintained and the
stream system neither aggrades nor degrades. A stable stream consistently transports its
sediment load, both in size and type, associated with local deposition and scour. Channel
instability occurs when the scouring process leads to degradation, or excessive sediment
deposition results in aggradation (Rosgen, 1996). The following surveys were conducted in
support of the monitoring assessment:
♦ Longitudinal Profile Survey. This survey addressed the overall slope of the reach, as
well as slopes between bed features. The bed features are secondary delineative
criteria describing channel configuration in terms of riffle/pools, rapids, step/pools,
cascades and convergence/divergence features which are inferred from channel plan
form and gradient. The surveys are compared on a yearly basis to note and/or
compare aggradation, degradation, head cuts, and areas of mass wasting. The
longitudinal profile is expected to change from year to year. Significant changes may
require additional monitoring.
♦ Cross Section Surveys. These surveys addressed the following characteristics at
various locations along the reach: entrenchment ratio, width/depth ratio, and
dominant channel materials. The entrenchment ratio is a computed index value used
to describe the degree of vertical containment. The width/depth ratio is an index
value which indicates the shape of the channel cross section. The dominant channel
materials refer to a selected size index value, the D50, representing the most
prevalent of one of six channel material types or size categories, as determined from
a channel material size distribution index.
2.2 Stream Description
2.2.1 Pre-Construction Conditions
South Fork Big Pine Creek classified as a B stream type in 1998 according to the Rosgen
Classification of Natural Rivers. The channel was moderately entrenched with an unusually
low width/depth ratio and sinuosity. According to the Natural Resources Conservation
Service (NRCS), flood damage along the creek was addressed by channelization in the early
1980’s. Vegetation consisted primarily of reed canary grass planted by the NRCS. Few
pools existed (NCWRC, 1998).
2.2.2 Post Construction Conditions
Two rock vanes and one rootwad revetment were installed at the project site to control
erosion of the streambanks on the outside of the meander bends. A rock/soil berm was
removed and the banks were sloped accordingly. Coir logs were used to define the bankfull
elevation. Three watering tanks were installed at the site for livestock management and a
barbed-wire fence was erected along the left riparian zone (facing downstream).
2.2.3 Monitoring Conditions
South Fork Big Pine Creek was initially classified as a B stream type according to the Rosgen
Classification of Natural Rivers. A total of five cross sections were surveyed as part of
monitoring activities. A comparison of channel morphology is presented in Table 1.
Channel stationing is provided on Figure 2.
Table 1. Abbreviated Morphological Summary (Charles/McGinnis Site)
Variable South Fork Big Pine Creek (Combined Cross Sections #1 Thru #5)
Pre-
Const.*
As-
Built* Year 1
Year 2
(June)
Year 2
(August) Year 3** Year 4**
Drainage Area (mi2) 2.7 2.7 2.7 2.7 2.7 2.7 2.7
Bankfull Width (ft) Mean - - 11.1 9.1 13.3
Bankfull Mean
Depth (ft) Mean - - 1.6 1.2 1.8
Width/Depth Ratio Mean - - 7.9 8.1 8.3
Bankfull Cross
Sectional Area (ft2) Mean - - 17.8 10.7 23.8
Maximum Bankfull
Depth (ft) Mean - - 2.6 1.9 2.8
Width of Floodprone
Area (ft) Mean - - >200 >200 >200
Entrenchment Ratio Mean - - >18 >22 >15
Slope - - 0.029 0.033 0.031
Particle Sizes (Riffle
Sections)
D16 (mm) - - 0.6 0.9 11.9
D35 (mm) - - 17.7 8.5 49.4
D50 (mm) - - 49.5 23.1 70.2
D84 (mm) - - 140.0 97.0 126.0
D95 (mm) - - 257.0 128.0 175.0
* According to the NCWRC, comparisons of pre-construction, as-built, and monitoring data are not valid due
to intangible factors. Monitoring data for subsequent years should be used as the basis of comparison.
** Year 3 through Year 4 Formal Monitoring has not been defined and may change based on MBRT opinions.
Monitoring was conducted twice during Year 2 (2004) due to the above-bankfull event in July after the initial
monitoring for the year was completed.
2.3 Results of the Stream Assessment
2.3.1 Site Data
The assessment included the re-survey of five cross sections and the longitudinal profile
established by the NCWRC after construction. This data is presented in the Appendix. The
longitudinal profile originated along the southern boundary of the site and proceeded
northward throughout the 1,100 linear-foot section of the reach. Stationing began at 0+00
and ended at 12+00. Both points were in the middle of riffle sections. Cross section
locations were subsequently based on the stationing of the longitudinal profile and are listed
below.
♦ Cross Section #1. Station 0+96, midpoint of riffle at rock vane
♦ Cross Section #2. Station 1+97, midpoint of run
♦ Cross Section #3. Station 3+31, midpoint of riffle
♦ Cross Section #4. Station 5+99, midpoint of riffle
♦ Cross Section #5. Station 7+70, midpoint of riffle
Due to heavy rains and associated flooding in July 2004, nearly all of the cross sections have
experienced changes. Based on the comparison of May and August 2004 cross section
survey results with the 2003 cross section results and as-built sections, Cross Sections #1,
#2, and #4 have degraded, while Cross Section #3 and #5 have aggraded. Even though
Cross Sections #3 and #5 have aggraded, the channels through these locations have
widened. Survey data varies dependent on actual location of rod placement and alignment;
however, this information should remain similar in overall appearance. The cross section
comparison is presented in Appendix B.
Pebble counts were taken at each cross section as a means to determine the extent of change
in bed material. However, only pebble counts taken at riffle sections were utilized to classify
the stream. No existing data was available for South Fork Big Pine Creek. Based on the
Year 2003 surveys, the cumulative D50 (50 percent of the sampled population is equal to or
finer than the representative particle diameter) of the reach was approximately 49.5 mm,
indicative of a gravel-bed stream.
The June 2004 and August 2004 pebble counts for the riffle sections noted a D50 of 23.1 and
70.2 mm, respectively. These results confirm changes in particle size distribution associated
with heavy rainfall and bankfull events. The channel has maintained its overall classification
as a gravel-bed, B stream type. As anticipated, the overall percentage of fines has decreased
throughout the size distribution charts, thus noting that the channel is becoming more stable
and efficient at transporting these materials. Charts depicting the particle size distributions
for South Fork Big Pine Creek for the Years 2003 and 2004, respectively, are presented
below.
Big Pine Creek Particle Size Distribution (July 17, 2003)
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
80%
90%
100%
0.1 1 10 100 1000
Particle Size - Millimeter
Combined X-Sect. 1 X-Sect. 2 X-Sect. 3 X-Sect. 4 X-Sect. 5
Big Pine Creek Particle Size Distribution (May 25, 2004)
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
80%
90%
100%
0.1 1 10 100 1000
Particle Size - Millimeter
% Cumulative (Finer Than)
Combined X-Sect. 1 X-Sect. 2 X-Sect. 3 X-Sect. 4 X-Sect. 5
Big Pine Creek Particle Size Distribution (August 2004)
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
80%
90%
100%
0.1 1 10 100 1000
Particle Size - Millimeter
% Cumulative (Finer Than)
Combined X-Sect. 1 X-Sect. 2 X-Sect. 3 X-Sect. 4 X-Sect. 5
Several potential head cuts or niche points were noted during the survey of the longitudinal
profile in 2003. The first was noted at Station 0+40. This cut was causing debris to
accumulate in the center of the channel and exacerbating bank erosion along both sides of
the channel. The cut was due to an old fence crossing the channel at this location which had
accumulated debris along the upstream side and thus raised the overall elevation of the
channel. The estimated drop of the thalweg was approximately two feet. This cut had
adjusted by the 2004 survey resulting in less accumulation of debris and an improvement in
bank stabilization. The other two cuts were observed at Stations 4+70 and 7+63. The
second cut exhibited a vertical drop of nearly 1.5 feet while the third dropped approximately
one foot. Both the second and third cuts had resulted in minor bank scouring. These cuts
had also adjusted by the 2004 survey causing bank scouring to cease.
Qualitative investigations were conducted in 2003 on the adjacent property downstream of
the project area to assess the applicability of a source for the head cutting. One area was
identified approximately 100 feet (30.5 meters) downstream of the project area. The
adjoining property owner had straightened a meander bend during the spring/summer of
2003. A log crib wall was placed on the outside of the reach for bank protection. This
straightening has resulted in the conversion of a pre-existing pool to a riffle thus, increasing
the overall slope of the channel through this area. Observations in 2004 indicated the
project has not yet been affected by the straightened channel.
Bank stability was also assessed during the longitudinal profile survey. Several areas of active
scouring and/or sloughing were observed in 2003. These areas were re-assessed during both
surveys in 2004. Descriptions relating to these areas are as follows:
♦ Station 0+96 at Cross Section #1. The existing coir log along the left streambank
(facing downstream) has been undermined by 2003. The structure remained in its
same state during both 2004 surveys. NCDOT will continue to monitor this area
through the next monitoring period.
♦ Station 1+89 through 2+00. In August of 2004 it was noted that severe erosion was
undercutting the left bank due to formation of a pool immediately downstream of
cross section #1. This area should be monitored closely during the next monitoring
period.
♦ Stations 2+21 through 2+54. A center bar was observed through this section of the
reach in 2003. The thalweg is currently following the left channel; however, the right
channel also funnels water during normal and high flows as noted during the August
2004 surveys. This area should be re-assessed during the next monitoring period.
♦ Stations 4+12 through 4+24. The 2004 survey noted bank erosion occurring
through this area along both sides of the channel resulting in approximately 1.5 feet
of bank undercutting. This area should continue to be monitored.
♦ Stations 5+33 through 5+63. The right streambank was undermined and actively
sloughing by the 2003 survey. During the first 2004 survey, the majority of the
undercut material had been washed downstream. The August 2004 survey revealed a
vertical streambank through this area.
♦ Stations 5+33 through 6+50. The left streambank was severely undercut by 2003.
This streambank remained unstable in 2004. This area should continue to be
monitored.
♦ Station 5+99 at Cross Section #4. Active erosion is present along outside of
meander bend. This meander bend experienced erosional problems during the
summer of 2003. NCDOT maintenance crews were forced to repair the outside of
this bend due to severe erosion along the roadway embankment. As a result, one
rootwad was removed and not replaced. Due to the bankfull event in July of 2004
the right bank has continued to undercut to a point where was under the roadway
pavement. NCDOT maintenance crews will likely stabilize this area; however,
remedial actions should be considered due to its close proximity to the existing
roadway and ease of access. These actions should include the placement of a vane
structure to divert the thalweg away from the roadway.
♦ Station 7+66 at Cross Section #5. In August 2004 it was noted that streambank was
undercut on the left side approximately 1.2 feet. This was the result of the high
flows experienced through this area. This area should be re-evaluated during the
next monitoring period.
♦ Stations 7+67 through 8+00. Active erosion was noted at and around the pipe
outlet entering from the right side. This area should continue to be monitored
during the next monitoring period.
♦ Stations 9+00 through 10+00. The right streambank is actively eroding. Existing
vegetation and access issues will likely prohibit remedial actions from being
completed. This area should continue to be monitored during the next monitoring
period.
2.3.2 Climatic Data
Monitoring requirements state that at least two bankfull events must be documented
through the five-year monitoring period. No surface water gages exist on Big Pine Creek or
its tributaries. A review of known U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) surface water gages
identified two gages within 12 miles of the mitigation site: one along the French Broad
River approximately one mile downstream of Marshall and one along the Ivy River at the US
25/70 crossing between Marshall and Weaverville, immediately northwest of the Madison
and Buncombe County boundary.
The Ivy River gage was utilized for this report since it is the smaller of the two gages (158
square-mile drainage area as compared to the 1,332 square-mile drainage area associated with
the French Broad) and more accurately reflects hydrology and precipitation in the area. The
Ivy River gage is situated in USGS Hydrologic Unit 06010105. Datum of the gage is
1,700.41 feet above sea level NGVD29. Based on the drainage area associated with the gage,
the correlated bankfull discharge according to the NC Rural Mountain Regional Curves
(USACE, 2003) is between 450 and 500 cubic feet per second (cfs). A review of peak flows
was conducted for the period between June 2002 and June 2004. According to the graph,
there were 13 bankfull events occurring during this period, with 10 of the events happening
in 2003. Approximately six of these events over the two year period exceeded 1,000 cfs, well
above the bankfull discharge. The USGS graph depicting these peak flows is presented
below.
2.4 Conclusions
Remedial actions may be necessary throughout several areas of this project dependent upon
decisions made by the Mitigation Review Team, NCDOT and the NCWRC. Based on
recent conversations with the NCWRC, additional maintenance related to bank stabilization
will likely be conducted during the fall and winter of 2004. Due to the stream’s close
proximity to Big Pine Road and non-restricted channel access, channel work can be done
from this side of the stream. Recommendations from the consultant monitoring group are
presented below regarding remedial action(s):
1. Re-assess the South Fork Big Pine Creek channel from Station 0+00 to Station
10+00. Compare the existing data to reference reach data of similar type stream.
Determine the amount of instability present and formulate a plan of action to correct
problem areas.
2. Consider the installation of a grade control structure (cross vane) in the vicinity of
Station 0+40. This structure would provide grade control, bank stability and
additional fisheries habitat.
3. Assess the center bar at Station 2+21. Consider re-aligning the channel via
placement of a rock vane structure.
4. Consider re-grading the eroding banks between Stations 5+33 and 6+50. Several
cross vane structures would likely help to stabilize the streambanks through this area.
5. Rock vanes should be the structures considered in the vicinity of Cross Section #4
to help stabilize the outside of the meander bend.
6. Cross Section #5 appears to be degrading. Placement of cross vanes through this
section (from Stations 7+67 to 8+00) would assist with grade control issues. It will
also assist with stabilizing the adjacent stream banks.
The remaining areas of concern should be monitored for the next several years to determine
the actual extent of change.
Additional substrate destabilization occurring from the noted downstream source will be
monitored to determine the overall effect on the project. Pending the outcome of this
assessment, the NCDOT may request the downstream landowner to remedy the problem.
Based on information obtained from the USGS, the Charles/McGinnis Site has not met the
required monitoring protocols. If the Mitigation Review Team determines that supplemental
work is needed, this work should be conducted during the winter of 2003/2004 to insure
that the overall goals of this project are maintained.
3.0 VEGETATION
3.1 Success Criteria
The NCDOT will monitor the South Fork Big Pine Creek Site for five years or until success
criteria is met. A 320 stems per acre survival criterion for planted seedlings will be used to
determine success for the first three years. The required survival criterion will decrease by
10 percent per year after the third year of vegetation monitoring (i.e., for an expected 290
stems per acre for year 4, and 260 stems per acre for year 5). The number of plants of one
species will not exceed 20 percent of the total number of plants of all species planted.
3.2 Description of Species
According to the As-Built Report for the Charles/McGinnis Mitigation Site, South Fork
Pine Creek, Madison County (2000), the following species were planted along the
streambanks:
Live Stakes (installed during winter of 1999/2000 )
Black willow (Salix nigra) Silky dogwood (Cornus amomum)
Silky willow (Salix sericea)
Bare Rooted Trees (installed during early winter 2000 )
Black willow (Salix nigra) Black walnut (Juglans nigra)
Red-osier dogwood (Cornus stonoifera) Persimmon (Diospyros virginiana)
Willow oak (Quercus phellos) Green ash (Fraxinus pennsylvanica)
River birch (Betula nigra) Red maple (Acer rubrum)
Permanent Seeding Mix
Sensitive fern (Onoclea sensibilis) Deertongue (Panicum clandestinum)
Joe pye weed (Eupatorium fistulosa) Button bush (Cephalanthus occidentalis)
Swamp milkweed (Asclepias incarnata) Elderberry (Sambucus canadensis)
Eastern gamagrass (Tripascum dactyloides) Red chokeberry (Aronia arbutifolia)
Creeping spikerush (Eleocharis palustris) Silky dogwood (Cornus amomum)
Green bulrush (Scirpus atrovirens) Winterberry (Ilex verticillata)
Hop sedge (Carex lupilina) Blackgum (Nyssa sylvatica)
Rice cut grass (Leersia oryzoides) Green ash (Fraxinus pennsylvanica)
Soft rush (Juncus effusus) Red maple (Acer rubrum)
Softstem bulrush (Scirpus validus) Pin oak (Quercus palustris)
Three square spikerush (Scirpus americanus) Black cherry (Prunus serotina)
Virginia wild rye (Elymus virginicus) Silver maple (Acer saccharium)
Woolgrass (Scirpus cyperinus)
3.3 Plot Descriptions
Several vegetation plots were installed during and immediately after construction. Since
these plots were not staked and information regarding species was not available, six new
plots were randomly established along the left streambank and floodplain within the project
area. No plots were established on the right streambank due to the narrow buffer and on-going
right-of-way maintenance associated with Big Pine Road. These six plots included two
large 1,000 square-foot areas near Stations 3+00 and 4+00. The remaining four plots were
one-meter square plots (12.1 square feet). Stakes were placed at all four edges of the 1,000
square-foot plots and at the two opposing edges of the 12.1 square-foot plots. These stakes
were flagged and labeled for future identification. Vegetation (trees) within the two 1,000
square-foot plots were flagged, tagged and numbered. The vegetation associated with the
12.1 square-foot plots were only flagged. Due to the narrow riparian area and ease of access,
the locations of these plots were not surveyed.
Tree Plot A is situated along the section upstream from the existing culvert. It is on the left
streambank (facing downstream) and is oriented in a north-south direction. Black willow,
silky willow, silky dogwood, green ash, and river birch account for the woody species in the
plot. Section 3.4 provide numerical counts for species found within Tree Plots A and B, as
well as the four small plots.
Tree Plot B is located on the left streambank immediately downstream of the culvert. It is
also oriented in a north-south direction. Dominant woody vegetation includes black willow,
silky willow, silky dogwood, and green ash.
3.4 Results of Vegetation Monitoring
Vegetation Monitoring Statistics, by Tree Plot
Plot No. (Type)
Black Willow
Silky Willow
Silky Dogwood
Red-osier Dogwood
Willow Oak
River Birch
Black Walnut
Persimmon
Green Ash
Red Maple
Total 2003 (Year 1)
Total 2004 (Year 2)
Total 2005 (Year 3)
Total 2006 (Year 4)
Total 2007 (Year 5)
Total (at planting)
Density (Trees/Acre)
Plot A (100'x10') 5 1 90 1 1 104 98 104 4,269
Plot B (100'x10') 25 16 49 1 94 90 94 3,920
AVERAGE DENSITY 4,094
Vegetation Monitoring Statistics, by Vegetation Plot
Plot No. (Type)
Black Willow
Silky Willow
Silky Dogwood
Red-osier Dogwood
Willow Oak
River Birch
Black Walnut
Persimmon
Green Ash
Red Maple
Total 2003 (Year 1)
Total 2004 (Year 2)
Total 2005 (Year 3)
Total 2006 (Year 4)
Total 2007 (Year 5)
Total (at planting)
Density (Trees/Acre)
Plot 1 (1 meter grid) 1 1 1 1 3,600
Plot 2 (1 meter grid) 2 2 2 2 7,200
Plot 3 (1 meter grid) 2 2 2 2 7,200
Plot 4 (1 meter grid) 1 1 1 1 3,600
AVERAGE DENSITY 5,400
Site Notes:
Vegetation plots were established during the first year of monitoring. Several plots were
installed during construction; however, these plots could not be located. Canary grass
(Phalaris sp.) dominates the herbaceous stratum at the site. This species is considered
invasive; however, it provides excellent ground cover and rooting stability during the
growing season. Specific notes regarding each plot is presented below.
Tree Plot A. One volunteer American elm (Ulmus americana) was observed in the plot.
Herbaceous species included canary grass, blackberry (Rubus sp.), clover (Trifolium sp.),
goldenrod (Solidago sp.), and ragweed (Ambrosia sp.).
Tree Plot B. Two volunteers were noted; cherrybark oak (Quercus pagoda) and forsythia
(Forsythia sp.). Herbaceous species included canary grass, blackberry, clover, goldenrod, and
ragweed.
Plot 1. Canary grass and goldenrod were observed in and immediately adjacent to the
vegetation plot. In addition, two silky dogwoods, two elderberries (Sambucus canadensis), and
one silky willow were noted within five feet of the vegetation plot.
Plot 2. Canary grass and blackberry were observed in and immediately adjacent to the
vegetation plot. In addition, seven silky dogwoods and one green ash were noted within five
feet of the vegetation plot.
Plot 3. Canary grass, clover (Trifolium sp.) and Japanese honeysuckle (Lonicera japonica) were
observed in and immediately adjacent to the vegetation plot. In addition, one silky willow
and six silky dogwoods were noted within five feet of the vegetation plot.
Plot 4. Canary grass, clover, vetch (Vicia sp.), and goldenrod (Solidago sp.) were observed in
and immediately adjacent to the plot. In addition, six silky dogwoods and three silky willows
were noted within five feet of the vegetation plot.
3.5 Conclusions
The 2004 vegetation monitoring of the site represents an average density above the
minimum required by the success criteria of 260 trees per acre.
4.0 BIOLOGICAL INDICATORS
Personnel with the Tennessee Valley Authority (TVA) were to conduct biological sampling
along South Fork Big Pine Creek. It is unknown at this time whether or not the sampling
has been conducted at the mitigation site. If this information becomes available, it will be
inserted into the report at a later time.
5.0 OVERALL CONCLUSIONS
Based on the overall conclusions of monitoring along South Fork Big Pine Creek, the
Charles/McGinnis Site has not met the required monitoring protocols for the second year of
monitoring. Areas of severe bank scour and erosion exist. These areas should be assessed
by the Mitigation Review Team to determine if remedial actions are warranted.
Based on information obtained from the U.S. Geological Survey (USGS), the Charles/
McGinnis Site has experienced more than ten bankfull events between 1999 and 2004, well
beyond the protocols required for hydrologic monitoring. However, the stream has
experienced de-stabilization throughout several sections of the reach. Vegetative success
criteria have been met for the second year of monitoring. No biological sampling has been
conducted to-date. It is unknown whether or not this sampling will be conducted as part of
overall monitoring activities.
6.0 REFERENCES
North Carolina Wildlife Resources Commission (NCWRC), 2000. As-built Report for the
Charles/McGinnis Mitigation Site, South Fork Big Pine Creek, Madison County.
North Carolina Wildlife Resources Commission (NCWRC), 1998. Conceptual Restoration
Plan, Charles-McGinnis Site, South Fork Big Pine Creek, Madison County.
Rosgen, D.L., 1996. Applied River Morphology. Wildland Hydrology, Pagosa Springs,
Colorado.
US Army Corps of Engineers (USACE), 2003. Stream Mitigation Guidelines. Prepared with
cooperation from the US Environmental Protection Agency, NC Wildlife Resources
Commission, and the NC Division of Water Quality.
US Geological Survey (USGS), 2004. Real-time Data for USGS 03453000 Ivy River near
Marshall, NC. http://waterdata.usgs.gov/nc/nwis.
APPENDIX A
AS-BUILT DATA
APPENDIX B
CROSS SECTIONS AND THE LONGITUDINAL PROFILE COMPARISON
Stream Classification
Location: Station 0+96
Year 2003 E4b stream type (mid point of riffle)
Year 2004 (June) C4b stream type (mid-point of riffle)
Year 2004 (August) E4b stream type (mid-point of riffle)
*Measurements were taken after “above bankfull” event.
Cross-Section #1 Abbreviated Morphological Summary
2003 2004 2004b*
Bankfull Cross Sectional Area (ft2) 29.5 10.8 29.9
Maximum Bankfull Depth (ft) 2.8 1.5 2.7
Bankfull Mean Depth (ft) 2.1 0.9 2.1
Width/Depth Ratio 6.8 14.4 6.6
Entrenchment Ratio >14 >16 >14
Bankfull Width (ft) 14.2 12.5 14.1
Big Pine Creek Cross Section #1
100.0
101.0
102.0
103.0
104.0
105.0
106.0
107.0
108.0
0 5 10 15 20 25 30
Station (ft)
Elevation (ft)
May 25, 2004 August 4, 2004 As-built July 17, 2003
Bankfull
Flood-Prone Area
Cross Section #1 at Station 0+96 – 2003. Photo taken from
left side of stream channel.
Cross Section #1 – June 2004. Photo taken from right side
of stream channel.
Cross Section #1 – August 2004. Photo taken from right side of
stream channel.
Stream Classification
Location: Station 1+97
Year 2003 E4b* stream type (mid point of run)
Year 2004 (June) E4b* stream type (mid-point of run)
Year 2004 (August) E4b* stream type (head of pool))
* Stream classifications are given for comparison purposes only. Normally,
classifications are taken only along riffle sections.
Cross-Section #2 Abbreviated Morphological Summary
2003 2004 2004b*
Bankfull Cross Sectional Area (ft2) 9.8 8.1 15.4
Maximum Bankfull Depth (ft) 2.1 1.8 3.4
Bankfull Mean Depth (ft) 1.1 1 1.7
Width/Depth Ratio 8.1 8.4 5.5
Entrenchment Ratio >4.0 >4.0 >4.0
Bankfull Width (ft) 8.9 8.3 9.3
Big Pine Creek Cross Section #2
95.0
96.0
97.0
98.0
99.0
100.0
101.0
102.0
103.0
104.0
0 5 10 15 20 25 30
Station (ft)
Elevation (ft)
May 25, 2004 August 4, 2004 As-built July 17, 2003
Flood-Prone Area
Bankfull
*Measurements were taken after above bankfull event.
Cross Section #2 at Station 1+97 - 2003. Photo taken from
right side of channel.
Cross Section #2 – June 2004. Photo taken from left side of
channel.
Cross Section #2 – August 2004. Photo taken from
right side of channel.
Stream Classification
Location: Station 3+31
Year 2003 C4b* stream type (mid point of riffle)
Year 2004 (June) E4b* stream type (mid-point of riffle)
Year 2004 (August) E4b* stream type (mid-point of riffle))
Cross-Section #3 Abbreviated Morphological Summary
2003 2004 2004b*
Bankfull Cross Sectional Area (ft2) 10.7 8.6 17
Maximum Bankfull Depth (ft) 2.5 2 2.4
Bankfull Mean Depth (ft) 0.9 1.2 1.3
Width/Depth Ratio 14.2 5.7 10.8
Entrenchment Ratio >3.0 >3.5 >3.0
Bankfull Width (ft) 12.3 7 13.5
*Measurements were taken after above bankfull event.
Cross Section #2 at Station 1+97 - 2003 Cross Section #2 – August 2004
Big Pine Creek Cross Section #3
92.0
93.0
94.0
95.0
96.0
97.0
98.0
99.0
0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35
Station (ft)
Elevation (ft)
May 25, 2004 August 4, 2004 As-built July 17, 2003
Bankfull
Flood-Prone Area
Cross Section #3 at Station 3+31 – 2003. Photo taken from
right side of channel.
Cross Section #3 – June 2004. Photo taken from right side of
channel.
Cross Section #3 – August 2004. Photo taken from right
side of channel.
Stream Classification
Location: Station 5+99
Year 2003 E4b* stream type (mid point of riffle)
Year 2004 (June) E4b* stream type (mid-point of riffle)
Year 2004 (August) E4b* stream type (mid-point of riffle))
Cross-Section #4 Abbreviated Morphological Summary
2003 2004 2004b*
Bankfull Cross Sectional Area (ft2) 20 13.4 31.1
Maximum Bankfull Depth (ft) 2.3 1.7 3.0
Bankfull Mean Depth (ft) 1.7 1.3 2.0
Width/Depth Ratio 6.6 7.8 7.9
Entrenchment Ratio >3.0 >3.0 >3.0
Bankfull Width (ft) 11.5 10.2 15.8
Big Pine Creek Cross Section #4
84.0
85.0
86.0
87.0
88.0
89.0
90.0
91.0
92.0
0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40
Station (ft)
Elevation (ft)
May 25, 2004 August 4, 2004 As-built July 17, 2003
Flood-Prone Area
Bankfull
*Measurements were taken after above bankfull event.
99 – 2003.
channel.
Cross Section #4 – 2003. Photo taken facing
upstream.
Cross Section #4 – June 2004. Photo taken from right side of channel.
Cross Section #4 – August 2004. Photo taken
from right side of channel.
Cross Section #4 – August 2004. Photo
taken facing upstream. Note that erosion
is under road at the existing water surface.
Stream Classification
Location: Station 7+70
Year 2003 E4b* stream type (mid point of riffle)
Year 2004 (June) E4b* stream type (mid-point of riffle)
Year 2004 (August) E4b* stream type (mid-point of riffle))
*Measurements were taken after above bankfull event.
Cross-Section #5 Abbreviated Morphological Summary
2003 2004 2004b
Bankfull Cross Sectional Area (ft2) 19 12.5 25.4
Maximum Bankfull Depth (ft) 3.5 2.3 2.5
Bankfull Mean Depth (ft) 2.2 1.7 1.8
Width/Depth Ratio 3.9 4.3 7.5
Entrenchment Ratio >4.0 >4.0 >4.0
Bankfull Width (ft) 8.6 7.3 13.8
Big Pine Creek Cross Section #5
79.0
80.0
81.0
82.0
83.0
84.0
85.0
86.0
87.0
88.0
0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40
Station (ft)
Elevation (ft)
May 25, 2004 August 4, 2004 As-built July 17, 2003
Flood-Prone Area
Bankfull
Cross Section #5 at Station 7+70 – 2003. Photo taken from
right side of channel.
Cross Section #5 – June 2004. Photo taken from right side
of channel.
Cross Section #5 – August 2004. Photo taken from right
side of channel.
Longitudinal Profile of Big Pine Creek, Charles Site Madison County, NC (July 17, 2003)
65
70
75
80
85
90
95
100
105
110
0 100 200 300 400 500 600 700 800 900 1000 1100 1200
Channel Distance (ft)
bed water srf BKF x-section
South Fork, Big Pine Creek (Charles Site) May 2004
65
70
75
80
85
90
95
100
105
110
0 200 400 600 800 1000 1200
Channel Distance (ft)
E le va tio n (ft)
bed water srf Terrace --- BKF culvert x-section
South Fork, Big Pine Creek (Charles Site) August 2004
75
80
85
90
95
100
105
110
0 50 100 150 200 250 300 350 400 450 500 550 600 650 700 750 800 850
Channel Distance (ft) Ele v a tio n ( ft) bed water srf Terrace --- BKF --- x-section
APPENDIX C
SITE PHOTOGRAPHS
Vegetation Plot Photographs
Tree Plot A – 2003. Photo taken from right
side of channel looking downstream.
Tree Plot A – 2004. Photo taken from right
side of channel looking upstream.
Tree Plot B – 2003. Photo taken facing
downstream from culvert.
Tree Plot B – 2004. Photo taken facing
downstream from culvert.
Vegetation Plot #1 near Station 0+96 along left
side of channel – 2003.
Vegetation Plot #1 – 2004.
Vegetation Plot #2 within Tree Plot A – 2003.
Vegetation Plot #2 – 2004.
Vegetation Plot #3 within Tree Plot B – 2003.
Vegetation Plot #3 – 2004.
Vegetation Plot #4 near Station 7+00 along
left side of channel – 2003.
Vegetation Plot #4 – 2004.
South Fork Big Pine Creek
Facing downstream at debris jam at Station 0+40
- 2003
Debris jam at Station 0+40 - 2004
2+21 - 2003 Existing center bar at Station 2+21 - 2004
banks at Facing upstream at undercut banks at
Station 5+65 – June 2004
f meander
As-Built Comparisons
Erosion at Station 5+99 along outside of
meander bend – August 2004
Facing upstream at Station 5+99 – August
2004
Facing downstream at pipe outlet at Station
7+70 - 2003
Pipe outlet at Station 7+70 – June 2004
Facing upstream from culvert – pre-monitoring
period
Facing upstream from culvert - 2003
Facing upstream from culvert – June 2004 Facing upstream from culvert – August 2004

ANNUAL REPORT FOR 2004
South Fork Big Pine Creek Stream Mitigation Site
(Charles/McGinnis Site)
Madison County
WBS Element 32573.4.1
TIP No. A-10WM
Prepared By:
Office of Natural Environment & Roadside Environmental Unit
North Carolina Department of Transportation
January 2005
Summary
The following report summarizes the stream monitoring activities that have occurred during
the Year 2004 at the Charles/McGinnis Site in Madison County. This site was constructed
in 1999 by the North Carolina Wildlife Resources Commission (NCWRC). This report
provides the monitoring results for the second formal year of monitoring (Year 2004);
however, it is actually the fifth year since construction.
Based on the overall conclusions of monitoring along South Fork Big Pine Creek, the
Charles/McGinnis Site has not met the required monitoring protocols for the second year of
monitoring. Areas of severe bank scour and erosion exist as a result of several large storm
events. These areas should be assessed by the Mitigation Review Team to determine if
remedial actions are warranted.
Based on information obtained from the U.S. Geological Survey (USGS), the Charles/
McGinnis Site has experienced more than ten bankfull events between 1999 and 2004, well
beyond the protocols required for hydrologic monitoring. However, the stream has
experienced de-stabilization throughout several sections of the reach. Vegetative success
criteria, however, have been met for the second year of monitoring. No biological sampling
has been conducted to date. It is unknown whether or not this sampling will be conducted
as part of overall monitoring activities.
The extent of yearly monitoring activities at the Charles/McGinnis Site will be dependent on
the decisions made by Mitigation Review Team during the fall/winter 2004 meeting.
1.0 INTRODUCTION
1.1 Project Description
The following report summarizes the stream monitoring activities that have occurred during
the Year 2004 at the Charles/McGinnis Site. The site is situated along South Fork Big Pine
Creek, immediately west of Big Pine Road (SR 1158) in the southwestern portion of
Madison County (Figure 1). It is approximately 16 miles (25.6 kilometers) west-southwest of
Mars Hill and nearly 18 miles (28.8 kilometers) northwest of Asheville. The Charles/
McGinnis Site was constructed as one of four projects to provide mitigation for stream
impacts associated with Transportation Improvement Program (TIP) Project No. A-10 in
Madison County.
This mitigation project covers approximately 1,100 linear feet of South Fork Big Pine Creek.
It was designed and constructed in 1999 by the North Carolina Wildlife Resources
Commission (NCWRC). Stream restoration involved construction of rock vanes for
stabilization purposes, installing livestock management practices, and re-vegetation of the
streambanks with native species. During the winter of 2000, the site was extensively planted
with live stakes and bare rooted trees.
1.2 Purpose
According to the as-built report (NCWRC, 2000), the objectives at this mitigation site were
to improve water quality, riparian quality and stability, and fisheries habitat associated with
South Fork Big Pine Creek. The following objectives were proposed:
♦ Increasing the floodplain area and stabilizing the bankfull elevations along the reach;
♦ Installing boulder vanes, log vanes, or rootwads along the stream to reduce overall
erosion and enhance/improve fish habitat;
♦ Installing small vortex weirs to create pool habitat in sections of long riffles;
♦ Sloping and vegetating the streambanks to provide more resistance to flooding; and
♦ Planting of native trees, shrubs, and ground cover to stabilize the banks, shade the
stream, and improve wildlife cover and food.
The majority of these objectives were completed by reshaping the stream banks to a more
stable cross-sectional profile. Areas of high bank stress were protected using rootwads, coir
logs, and vanes. The riparian zone was planted with native vegetation. No vortex weirs or
cross vanes however, were installed to create pool habitat.
Successful stream mitigation is demonstrated by a stable channel that does not aggrade or
degrade over time. It is also demonstrated by reduced erosion rates, the permanent
establishment of native vegetation, and bed features consistent with the design stream type.
Vegetation survival is based on federal guidelines denoting success criteria for wetland
mitigation. Results of stream monitoring conducted during the 2004 growing season at the
Charles/McGinnis Site are included in this report.
Activities in 2004 reflect the second formal year of monitoring following the restoration
efforts; however, it is the fifth year since construction. Included in this report are analyses
on stability (primarily the longitudinal profile and cross sections), vegetative monitoring
results, and site photographs. Monitoring activities were conducted twice during 2004 due
to heavy rain events and subsequent flooding encountered during July. The data for the May
and August monitoring is presented for comparison purposes.
1.3 Project History
The effort to provide stream mitigation for TIP No. A-10 began in 1996 with a
Memorandum of Agreement (MOA) between the North Carolina Department of
Transportation (NCDOT) with the NCWRC. The MOA was to provide 25,000 feet of
mitigation for 9,990 feet of jurisdictional stream impacts. Subsequent amendments to the
MOA were made to provide mitigation for additional stream impacts from TIP No. A-10.
These amendments resulted in a total mitigation of over 26,000 feet.
The NCDOT worked with representatives from the NCWRC, U.S. Army Corps of
Engineers, North Carolina Division of Water Quality, U.S. Environmental Protection
Agency, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Natural Resources Conservation Service and
Madison County Soil and Water Conservation District on a Mitigation Review Team. The
purpose of the team was to develop criteria and policies for selecting stream reaches for
mitigation.
The Charles/McGinnis Site was one of the sites selected by the Mitigation Review Team to
provide compensatory mitigation for TIP No. A-10. The mitigation plan for this mitigation
site was developed during 1998 and approved by the team. The NCWRC implemented the
project in 1999.
August 1999 Site grading commenced
August 1999 Site Planted with Native Perennial Seed Mix
January 2000 Site Planted with Live Stakes and Bare Rooted Trees
July 2000 NCWRC Site Review to Evaluate Vegetation
June – July 2003 Stream Channel Monitoring (1 yr.)
June – July 2003 Vegetation Monitoring (1 yr.)
May/June 2004 Stream Channel Monitoring (2 yr.)
May 2004 Vegetation Monitoring (2 yr.)
August 2004 Additional Stream Channel Monitoring (2 yr.)
following “above-bankfull” events.
During July of 2004, the Charles/McGinnis Site experienced heavy rains that caused South
Fork Big Pine Creek to reach stages above bankfull. The overall event worsened the existing
scour and erosion taking place along the stream. As a result, several sections of the stream
remain undercut and unstable. Based on conversations with the NCWRC, remedial actions
have been proposed during the fall/winter of 2004; however, the Mitigation Review Team
will ultimately decide on the degree of effort, timing, and extent of future monitoring
required at this site.
1.4 Debit Ledger
The entire Charles/McGinnis Site was used for TIP No. A-10 to compensate for
unavoidable stream impacts related with roadway construction. This project generated 1,100
linear feet of stream credits.
2.0 STREAM ASSESSMENT
2.1 Success Criteria
The success criterion, as defined by the Mitigation Site Monitoring Protocol for the
NCWRC/NCDOT Mitigation Program (2003), evaluates channel stability and
improvements to fish habitat. Specifically, this evaluation includes all or a combination of
the following parameters: channel stability, erosion control, seeding, woody vegetation, and
overall response of fish and invertebrate populations for stream mitigation projects. This is
to be accomplished using photo reference sites, stream dimension and profile, survival of
planted vegetation, and direct sampling of important populations. The chart provided below
further details the criteria used to evaluate success or failure at these mitigation sites.
NCWRC/ NCDOT Mitigation Monitoring Criteria
Measurement Success (requires no action) Failure Action
Photo Reference Sites
Longitudinal
Photos
Lateral Photos
No significant* aggradation,
degradation, or erosion
Significant* aggradation,
degradation, or erosion
When significant*
aggradation, degradation or
erosion occurs, remedial
actions will be undertaken.
Channel Stability
Cross-Sections
Longitudinal
Profiles
Pebble Counts
Minimal evidence of instability
(down-cutting, deposition,
erosion, decrease in particle size)
Significant* evidence of
instability
When significant* evidence
of instability occurs,
remedial actions will be
undertaken.
Plant Survival
Survival Plots >75% coverage in Photo Plots <75% coverage in Photo Plots
Stake Counts >80% survival of stakes, 4/m2 <80% survival of stakes, 4/m2
Tree Counts
>80% survival of bare-rooted
trees
<80% survival of bare-rooted
trees
Areas of less than 75%
coverage will be re-seeded
and/or fertilized, live stakes
and bare-rooted trees will
be replanted to achieve
>80% survival.
Biological Indicators (only used for projects with potential to make watershed level changes)
Invertebrate Pop.
Fish Populations
Population measures remain to
same or improve
Population measures indicate a
negative trend
Reasons for failure will be
evaluted and remedial
action plans developed and
implemented.
Overall success or failure will be based on success of 3 of the 4 criteria.
*Significance or subjective determinations of success will be determined by a majority decision of the Mitigation Review Team
Federal guidelines for stream mitigation are relatively consistent with those protocols
established by the NCWRC and NCDOT. These guidelines include the following main
parameters: no less than two bankfull events for the five-year monitoring period, reference
photos, plant survivability analyses, channel stability analyses, and biological data if
specifically required by permit conditions (USACE, 2003). This report addresses all of the
above mentioned parameters for both the NCWRC/NCDOT protocols and federal
guidelines aside from shading and biological data, which was not required at this site.
Natural streams are dynamic systems that are in a constant state of change. Longitudinal
profile and cross section surveys will differ from year to year based on changes in the
watershed. Natural channel stability is achieved by allowing the stream to develop a proper
dimension, pattern, and profile such that, over time, channel features are maintained and the
stream system neither aggrades nor degrades. A stable stream consistently transports its
sediment load, both in size and type, associated with local deposition and scour. Channel
instability occurs when the scouring process leads to degradation, or excessive sediment
deposition results in aggradation (Rosgen, 1996). The following surveys were conducted in
support of the monitoring assessment:
♦ Longitudinal Profile Survey. This survey addressed the overall slope of the reach, as
well as slopes between bed features. The bed features are secondary delineative
criteria describing channel configuration in terms of riffle/pools, rapids, step/pools,
cascades and convergence/divergence features which are inferred from channel plan
form and gradient. The surveys are compared on a yearly basis to note and/or
compare aggradation, degradation, head cuts, and areas of mass wasting. The
longitudinal profile is expected to change from year to year. Significant changes may
require additional monitoring.
♦ Cross Section Surveys. These surveys addressed the following characteristics at
various locations along the reach: entrenchment ratio, width/depth ratio, and
dominant channel materials. The entrenchment ratio is a computed index value used
to describe the degree of vertical containment. The width/depth ratio is an index
value which indicates the shape of the channel cross section. The dominant channel
materials refer to a selected size index value, the D50, representing the most
prevalent of one of six channel material types or size categories, as determined from
a channel material size distribution index.
2.2 Stream Description
2.2.1 Pre-Construction Conditions
South Fork Big Pine Creek classified as a B stream type in 1998 according to the Rosgen
Classification of Natural Rivers. The channel was moderately entrenched with an unusually
low width/depth ratio and sinuosity. According to the Natural Resources Conservation
Service (NRCS), flood damage along the creek was addressed by channelization in the early
1980’s. Vegetation consisted primarily of reed canary grass planted by the NRCS. Few
pools existed (NCWRC, 1998).
2.2.2 Post Construction Conditions
Two rock vanes and one rootwad revetment were installed at the project site to control
erosion of the streambanks on the outside of the meander bends. A rock/soil berm was
removed and the banks were sloped accordingly. Coir logs were used to define the bankfull
elevation. Three watering tanks were installed at the site for livestock management and a
barbed-wire fence was erected along the left riparian zone (facing downstream).
2.2.3 Monitoring Conditions
South Fork Big Pine Creek was initially classified as a B stream type according to the Rosgen
Classification of Natural Rivers. A total of five cross sections were surveyed as part of
monitoring activities. A comparison of channel morphology is presented in Table 1.
Channel stationing is provided on Figure 2.
Table 1. Abbreviated Morphological Summary (Charles/McGinnis Site)
Variable South Fork Big Pine Creek (Combined Cross Sections #1 Thru #5)
Pre-
Const.*
As-
Built* Year 1
Year 2
(June)
Year 2
(August) Year 3** Year 4**
Drainage Area (mi2) 2.7 2.7 2.7 2.7 2.7 2.7 2.7
Bankfull Width (ft) Mean - - 11.1 9.1 13.3
Bankfull Mean
Depth (ft) Mean - - 1.6 1.2 1.8
Width/Depth Ratio Mean - - 7.9 8.1 8.3
Bankfull Cross
Sectional Area (ft2) Mean - - 17.8 10.7 23.8
Maximum Bankfull
Depth (ft) Mean - - 2.6 1.9 2.8
Width of Floodprone
Area (ft) Mean - - >200 >200 >200
Entrenchment Ratio Mean - - >18 >22 >15
Slope - - 0.029 0.033 0.031
Particle Sizes (Riffle
Sections)
D16 (mm) - - 0.6 0.9 11.9
D35 (mm) - - 17.7 8.5 49.4
D50 (mm) - - 49.5 23.1 70.2
D84 (mm) - - 140.0 97.0 126.0
D95 (mm) - - 257.0 128.0 175.0
* According to the NCWRC, comparisons of pre-construction, as-built, and monitoring data are not valid due
to intangible factors. Monitoring data for subsequent years should be used as the basis of comparison.
** Year 3 through Year 4 Formal Monitoring has not been defined and may change based on MBRT opinions.
Monitoring was conducted twice during Year 2 (2004) due to the above-bankfull event in July after the initial
monitoring for the year was completed.
2.3 Results of the Stream Assessment
2.3.1 Site Data
The assessment included the re-survey of five cross sections and the longitudinal profile
established by the NCWRC after construction. This data is presented in the Appendix. The
longitudinal profile originated along the southern boundary of the site and proceeded
northward throughout the 1,100 linear-foot section of the reach. Stationing began at 0+00
and ended at 12+00. Both points were in the middle of riffle sections. Cross section
locations were subsequently based on the stationing of the longitudinal profile and are listed
below.
♦ Cross Section #1. Station 0+96, midpoint of riffle at rock vane
♦ Cross Section #2. Station 1+97, midpoint of run
♦ Cross Section #3. Station 3+31, midpoint of riffle
♦ Cross Section #4. Station 5+99, midpoint of riffle
♦ Cross Section #5. Station 7+70, midpoint of riffle
Due to heavy rains and associated flooding in July 2004, nearly all of the cross sections have
experienced changes. Based on the comparison of May and August 2004 cross section
survey results with the 2003 cross section results and as-built sections, Cross Sections #1,
#2, and #4 have degraded, while Cross Section #3 and #5 have aggraded. Even though
Cross Sections #3 and #5 have aggraded, the channels through these locations have
widened. Survey data varies dependent on actual location of rod placement and alignment;
however, this information should remain similar in overall appearance. The cross section
comparison is presented in Appendix B.
Pebble counts were taken at each cross section as a means to determine the extent of change
in bed material. However, only pebble counts taken at riffle sections were utilized to classify
the stream. No existing data was available for South Fork Big Pine Creek. Based on the
Year 2003 surveys, the cumulative D50 (50 percent of the sampled population is equal to or
finer than the representative particle diameter) of the reach was approximately 49.5 mm,
indicative of a gravel-bed stream.
The June 2004 and August 2004 pebble counts for the riffle sections noted a D50 of 23.1 and
70.2 mm, respectively. These results confirm changes in particle size distribution associated
with heavy rainfall and bankfull events. The channel has maintained its overall classification
as a gravel-bed, B stream type. As anticipated, the overall percentage of fines has decreased
throughout the size distribution charts, thus noting that the channel is becoming more stable
and efficient at transporting these materials. Charts depicting the particle size distributions
for South Fork Big Pine Creek for the Years 2003 and 2004, respectively, are presented
below.
Big Pine Creek Particle Size Distribution (July 17, 2003)
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
80%
90%
100%
0.1 1 10 100 1000
Particle Size - Millimeter
Combined X-Sect. 1 X-Sect. 2 X-Sect. 3 X-Sect. 4 X-Sect. 5
Big Pine Creek Particle Size Distribution (May 25, 2004)
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
80%
90%
100%
0.1 1 10 100 1000
Particle Size - Millimeter
% Cumulative (Finer Than)
Combined X-Sect. 1 X-Sect. 2 X-Sect. 3 X-Sect. 4 X-Sect. 5
Big Pine Creek Particle Size Distribution (August 2004)
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
80%
90%
100%
0.1 1 10 100 1000
Particle Size - Millimeter
% Cumulative (Finer Than)
Combined X-Sect. 1 X-Sect. 2 X-Sect. 3 X-Sect. 4 X-Sect. 5
Several potential head cuts or niche points were noted during the survey of the longitudinal
profile in 2003. The first was noted at Station 0+40. This cut was causing debris to
accumulate in the center of the channel and exacerbating bank erosion along both sides of
the channel. The cut was due to an old fence crossing the channel at this location which had
accumulated debris along the upstream side and thus raised the overall elevation of the
channel. The estimated drop of the thalweg was approximately two feet. This cut had
adjusted by the 2004 survey resulting in less accumulation of debris and an improvement in
bank stabilization. The other two cuts were observed at Stations 4+70 and 7+63. The
second cut exhibited a vertical drop of nearly 1.5 feet while the third dropped approximately
one foot. Both the second and third cuts had resulted in minor bank scouring. These cuts
had also adjusted by the 2004 survey causing bank scouring to cease.
Qualitative investigations were conducted in 2003 on the adjacent property downstream of
the project area to assess the applicability of a source for the head cutting. One area was
identified approximately 100 feet (30.5 meters) downstream of the project area. The
adjoining property owner had straightened a meander bend during the spring/summer of
2003. A log crib wall was placed on the outside of the reach for bank protection. This
straightening has resulted in the conversion of a pre-existing pool to a riffle thus, increasing
the overall slope of the channel through this area. Observations in 2004 indicated the
project has not yet been affected by the straightened channel.
Bank stability was also assessed during the longitudinal profile survey. Several areas of active
scouring and/or sloughing were observed in 2003. These areas were re-assessed during both
surveys in 2004. Descriptions relating to these areas are as follows:
♦ Station 0+96 at Cross Section #1. The existing coir log along the left streambank
(facing downstream) has been undermined by 2003. The structure remained in its
same state during both 2004 surveys. NCDOT will continue to monitor this area
through the next monitoring period.
♦ Station 1+89 through 2+00. In August of 2004 it was noted that severe erosion was
undercutting the left bank due to formation of a pool immediately downstream of
cross section #1. This area should be monitored closely during the next monitoring
period.
♦ Stations 2+21 through 2+54. A center bar was observed through this section of the
reach in 2003. The thalweg is currently following the left channel; however, the right
channel also funnels water during normal and high flows as noted during the August
2004 surveys. This area should be re-assessed during the next monitoring period.
♦ Stations 4+12 through 4+24. The 2004 survey noted bank erosion occurring
through this area along both sides of the channel resulting in approximately 1.5 feet
of bank undercutting. This area should continue to be monitored.
♦ Stations 5+33 through 5+63. The right streambank was undermined and actively
sloughing by the 2003 survey. During the first 2004 survey, the majority of the
undercut material had been washed downstream. The August 2004 survey revealed a
vertical streambank through this area.
♦ Stations 5+33 through 6+50. The left streambank was severely undercut by 2003.
This streambank remained unstable in 2004. This area should continue to be
monitored.
♦ Station 5+99 at Cross Section #4. Active erosion is present along outside of
meander bend. This meander bend experienced erosional problems during the
summer of 2003. NCDOT maintenance crews were forced to repair the outside of
this bend due to severe erosion along the roadway embankment. As a result, one
rootwad was removed and not replaced. Due to the bankfull event in July of 2004
the right bank has continued to undercut to a point where was under the roadway
pavement. NCDOT maintenance crews will likely stabilize this area; however,
remedial actions should be considered due to its close proximity to the existing
roadway and ease of access. These actions should include the placement of a vane
structure to divert the thalweg away from the roadway.
♦ Station 7+66 at Cross Section #5. In August 2004 it was noted that streambank was
undercut on the left side approximately 1.2 feet. This was the result of the high
flows experienced through this area. This area should be re-evaluated during the
next monitoring period.
♦ Stations 7+67 through 8+00. Active erosion was noted at and around the pipe
outlet entering from the right side. This area should continue to be monitored
during the next monitoring period.
♦ Stations 9+00 through 10+00. The right streambank is actively eroding. Existing
vegetation and access issues will likely prohibit remedial actions from being
completed. This area should continue to be monitored during the next monitoring
period.
2.3.2 Climatic Data
Monitoring requirements state that at least two bankfull events must be documented
through the five-year monitoring period. No surface water gages exist on Big Pine Creek or
its tributaries. A review of known U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) surface water gages
identified two gages within 12 miles of the mitigation site: one along the French Broad
River approximately one mile downstream of Marshall and one along the Ivy River at the US
25/70 crossing between Marshall and Weaverville, immediately northwest of the Madison
and Buncombe County boundary.
The Ivy River gage was utilized for this report since it is the smaller of the two gages (158
square-mile drainage area as compared to the 1,332 square-mile drainage area associated with
the French Broad) and more accurately reflects hydrology and precipitation in the area. The
Ivy River gage is situated in USGS Hydrologic Unit 06010105. Datum of the gage is
1,700.41 feet above sea level NGVD29. Based on the drainage area associated with the gage,
the correlated bankfull discharge according to the NC Rural Mountain Regional Curves
(USACE, 2003) is between 450 and 500 cubic feet per second (cfs). A review of peak flows
was conducted for the period between June 2002 and June 2004. According to the graph,
there were 13 bankfull events occurring during this period, with 10 of the events happening
in 2003. Approximately six of these events over the two year period exceeded 1,000 cfs, well
above the bankfull discharge. The USGS graph depicting these peak flows is presented
below.
2.4 Conclusions
Remedial actions may be necessary throughout several areas of this project dependent upon
decisions made by the Mitigation Review Team, NCDOT and the NCWRC. Based on
recent conversations with the NCWRC, additional maintenance related to bank stabilization
will likely be conducted during the fall and winter of 2004. Due to the stream’s close
proximity to Big Pine Road and non-restricted channel access, channel work can be done
from this side of the stream. Recommendations from the consultant monitoring group are
presented below regarding remedial action(s):
1. Re-assess the South Fork Big Pine Creek channel from Station 0+00 to Station
10+00. Compare the existing data to reference reach data of similar type stream.
Determine the amount of instability present and formulate a plan of action to correct
problem areas.
2. Consider the installation of a grade control structure (cross vane) in the vicinity of
Station 0+40. This structure would provide grade control, bank stability and
additional fisheries habitat.
3. Assess the center bar at Station 2+21. Consider re-aligning the channel via
placement of a rock vane structure.
4. Consider re-grading the eroding banks between Stations 5+33 and 6+50. Several
cross vane structures would likely help to stabilize the streambanks through this area.
5. Rock vanes should be the structures considered in the vicinity of Cross Section #4
to help stabilize the outside of the meander bend.
6. Cross Section #5 appears to be degrading. Placement of cross vanes through this
section (from Stations 7+67 to 8+00) would assist with grade control issues. It will
also assist with stabilizing the adjacent stream banks.
The remaining areas of concern should be monitored for the next several years to determine
the actual extent of change.
Additional substrate destabilization occurring from the noted downstream source will be
monitored to determine the overall effect on the project. Pending the outcome of this
assessment, the NCDOT may request the downstream landowner to remedy the problem.
Based on information obtained from the USGS, the Charles/McGinnis Site has not met the
required monitoring protocols. If the Mitigation Review Team determines that supplemental
work is needed, this work should be conducted during the winter of 2003/2004 to insure
that the overall goals of this project are maintained.
3.0 VEGETATION
3.1 Success Criteria
The NCDOT will monitor the South Fork Big Pine Creek Site for five years or until success
criteria is met. A 320 stems per acre survival criterion for planted seedlings will be used to
determine success for the first three years. The required survival criterion will decrease by
10 percent per year after the third year of vegetation monitoring (i.e., for an expected 290
stems per acre for year 4, and 260 stems per acre for year 5). The number of plants of one
species will not exceed 20 percent of the total number of plants of all species planted.
3.2 Description of Species
According to the As-Built Report for the Charles/McGinnis Mitigation Site, South Fork
Pine Creek, Madison County (2000), the following species were planted along the
streambanks:
Live Stakes (installed during winter of 1999/2000 )
Black willow (Salix nigra) Silky dogwood (Cornus amomum)
Silky willow (Salix sericea)
Bare Rooted Trees (installed during early winter 2000 )
Black willow (Salix nigra) Black walnut (Juglans nigra)
Red-osier dogwood (Cornus stonoifera) Persimmon (Diospyros virginiana)
Willow oak (Quercus phellos) Green ash (Fraxinus pennsylvanica)
River birch (Betula nigra) Red maple (Acer rubrum)
Permanent Seeding Mix
Sensitive fern (Onoclea sensibilis) Deertongue (Panicum clandestinum)
Joe pye weed (Eupatorium fistulosa) Button bush (Cephalanthus occidentalis)
Swamp milkweed (Asclepias incarnata) Elderberry (Sambucus canadensis)
Eastern gamagrass (Tripascum dactyloides) Red chokeberry (Aronia arbutifolia)
Creeping spikerush (Eleocharis palustris) Silky dogwood (Cornus amomum)
Green bulrush (Scirpus atrovirens) Winterberry (Ilex verticillata)
Hop sedge (Carex lupilina) Blackgum (Nyssa sylvatica)
Rice cut grass (Leersia oryzoides) Green ash (Fraxinus pennsylvanica)
Soft rush (Juncus effusus) Red maple (Acer rubrum)
Softstem bulrush (Scirpus validus) Pin oak (Quercus palustris)
Three square spikerush (Scirpus americanus) Black cherry (Prunus serotina)
Virginia wild rye (Elymus virginicus) Silver maple (Acer saccharium)
Woolgrass (Scirpus cyperinus)
3.3 Plot Descriptions
Several vegetation plots were installed during and immediately after construction. Since
these plots were not staked and information regarding species was not available, six new
plots were randomly established along the left streambank and floodplain within the project
area. No plots were established on the right streambank due to the narrow buffer and on-going
right-of-way maintenance associated with Big Pine Road. These six plots included two
large 1,000 square-foot areas near Stations 3+00 and 4+00. The remaining four plots were
one-meter square plots (12.1 square feet). Stakes were placed at all four edges of the 1,000
square-foot plots and at the two opposing edges of the 12.1 square-foot plots. These stakes
were flagged and labeled for future identification. Vegetation (trees) within the two 1,000
square-foot plots were flagged, tagged and numbered. The vegetation associated with the
12.1 square-foot plots were only flagged. Due to the narrow riparian area and ease of access,
the locations of these plots were not surveyed.
Tree Plot A is situated along the section upstream from the existing culvert. It is on the left
streambank (facing downstream) and is oriented in a north-south direction. Black willow,
silky willow, silky dogwood, green ash, and river birch account for the woody species in the
plot. Section 3.4 provide numerical counts for species found within Tree Plots A and B, as
well as the four small plots.
Tree Plot B is located on the left streambank immediately downstream of the culvert. It is
also oriented in a north-south direction. Dominant woody vegetation includes black willow,
silky willow, silky dogwood, and green ash.
3.4 Results of Vegetation Monitoring
Vegetation Monitoring Statistics, by Tree Plot
Plot No. (Type)
Black Willow
Silky Willow
Silky Dogwood
Red-osier Dogwood
Willow Oak
River Birch
Black Walnut
Persimmon
Green Ash
Red Maple
Total 2003 (Year 1)
Total 2004 (Year 2)
Total 2005 (Year 3)
Total 2006 (Year 4)
Total 2007 (Year 5)
Total (at planting)
Density (Trees/Acre)
Plot A (100'x10') 5 1 90 1 1 104 98 104 4,269
Plot B (100'x10') 25 16 49 1 94 90 94 3,920
AVERAGE DENSITY 4,094
Vegetation Monitoring Statistics, by Vegetation Plot
Plot No. (Type)
Black Willow
Silky Willow
Silky Dogwood
Red-osier Dogwood
Willow Oak
River Birch
Black Walnut
Persimmon
Green Ash
Red Maple
Total 2003 (Year 1)
Total 2004 (Year 2)
Total 2005 (Year 3)
Total 2006 (Year 4)
Total 2007 (Year 5)
Total (at planting)
Density (Trees/Acre)
Plot 1 (1 meter grid) 1 1 1 1 3,600
Plot 2 (1 meter grid) 2 2 2 2 7,200
Plot 3 (1 meter grid) 2 2 2 2 7,200
Plot 4 (1 meter grid) 1 1 1 1 3,600
AVERAGE DENSITY 5,400
Site Notes:
Vegetation plots were established during the first year of monitoring. Several plots were
installed during construction; however, these plots could not be located. Canary grass
(Phalaris sp.) dominates the herbaceous stratum at the site. This species is considered
invasive; however, it provides excellent ground cover and rooting stability during the
growing season. Specific notes regarding each plot is presented below.
Tree Plot A. One volunteer American elm (Ulmus americana) was observed in the plot.
Herbaceous species included canary grass, blackberry (Rubus sp.), clover (Trifolium sp.),
goldenrod (Solidago sp.), and ragweed (Ambrosia sp.).
Tree Plot B. Two volunteers were noted; cherrybark oak (Quercus pagoda) and forsythia
(Forsythia sp.). Herbaceous species included canary grass, blackberry, clover, goldenrod, and
ragweed.
Plot 1. Canary grass and goldenrod were observed in and immediately adjacent to the
vegetation plot. In addition, two silky dogwoods, two elderberries (Sambucus canadensis), and
one silky willow were noted within five feet of the vegetation plot.
Plot 2. Canary grass and blackberry were observed in and immediately adjacent to the
vegetation plot. In addition, seven silky dogwoods and one green ash were noted within five
feet of the vegetation plot.
Plot 3. Canary grass, clover (Trifolium sp.) and Japanese honeysuckle (Lonicera japonica) were
observed in and immediately adjacent to the vegetation plot. In addition, one silky willow
and six silky dogwoods were noted within five feet of the vegetation plot.
Plot 4. Canary grass, clover, vetch (Vicia sp.), and goldenrod (Solidago sp.) were observed in
and immediately adjacent to the plot. In addition, six silky dogwoods and three silky willows
were noted within five feet of the vegetation plot.
3.5 Conclusions
The 2004 vegetation monitoring of the site represents an average density above the
minimum required by the success criteria of 260 trees per acre.
4.0 BIOLOGICAL INDICATORS
Personnel with the Tennessee Valley Authority (TVA) were to conduct biological sampling
along South Fork Big Pine Creek. It is unknown at this time whether or not the sampling
has been conducted at the mitigation site. If this information becomes available, it will be
inserted into the report at a later time.
5.0 OVERALL CONCLUSIONS
Based on the overall conclusions of monitoring along South Fork Big Pine Creek, the
Charles/McGinnis Site has not met the required monitoring protocols for the second year of
monitoring. Areas of severe bank scour and erosion exist. These areas should be assessed
by the Mitigation Review Team to determine if remedial actions are warranted.
Based on information obtained from the U.S. Geological Survey (USGS), the Charles/
McGinnis Site has experienced more than ten bankfull events between 1999 and 2004, well
beyond the protocols required for hydrologic monitoring. However, the stream has
experienced de-stabilization throughout several sections of the reach. Vegetative success
criteria have been met for the second year of monitoring. No biological sampling has been
conducted to-date. It is unknown whether or not this sampling will be conducted as part of
overall monitoring activities.
6.0 REFERENCES
North Carolina Wildlife Resources Commission (NCWRC), 2000. As-built Report for the
Charles/McGinnis Mitigation Site, South Fork Big Pine Creek, Madison County.
North Carolina Wildlife Resources Commission (NCWRC), 1998. Conceptual Restoration
Plan, Charles-McGinnis Site, South Fork Big Pine Creek, Madison County.
Rosgen, D.L., 1996. Applied River Morphology. Wildland Hydrology, Pagosa Springs,
Colorado.
US Army Corps of Engineers (USACE), 2003. Stream Mitigation Guidelines. Prepared with
cooperation from the US Environmental Protection Agency, NC Wildlife Resources
Commission, and the NC Division of Water Quality.
US Geological Survey (USGS), 2004. Real-time Data for USGS 03453000 Ivy River near
Marshall, NC. http://waterdata.usgs.gov/nc/nwis.
APPENDIX A
AS-BUILT DATA
APPENDIX B
CROSS SECTIONS AND THE LONGITUDINAL PROFILE COMPARISON
Stream Classification
Location: Station 0+96
Year 2003 E4b stream type (mid point of riffle)
Year 2004 (June) C4b stream type (mid-point of riffle)
Year 2004 (August) E4b stream type (mid-point of riffle)
*Measurements were taken after “above bankfull” event.
Cross-Section #1 Abbreviated Morphological Summary
2003 2004 2004b*
Bankfull Cross Sectional Area (ft2) 29.5 10.8 29.9
Maximum Bankfull Depth (ft) 2.8 1.5 2.7
Bankfull Mean Depth (ft) 2.1 0.9 2.1
Width/Depth Ratio 6.8 14.4 6.6
Entrenchment Ratio >14 >16 >14
Bankfull Width (ft) 14.2 12.5 14.1
Big Pine Creek Cross Section #1
100.0
101.0
102.0
103.0
104.0
105.0
106.0
107.0
108.0
0 5 10 15 20 25 30
Station (ft)
Elevation (ft)
May 25, 2004 August 4, 2004 As-built July 17, 2003
Bankfull
Flood-Prone Area
Cross Section #1 at Station 0+96 – 2003. Photo taken from
left side of stream channel.
Cross Section #1 – June 2004. Photo taken from right side
of stream channel.
Cross Section #1 – August 2004. Photo taken from right side of
stream channel.
Stream Classification
Location: Station 1+97
Year 2003 E4b* stream type (mid point of run)
Year 2004 (June) E4b* stream type (mid-point of run)
Year 2004 (August) E4b* stream type (head of pool))
* Stream classifications are given for comparison purposes only. Normally,
classifications are taken only along riffle sections.
Cross-Section #2 Abbreviated Morphological Summary
2003 2004 2004b*
Bankfull Cross Sectional Area (ft2) 9.8 8.1 15.4
Maximum Bankfull Depth (ft) 2.1 1.8 3.4
Bankfull Mean Depth (ft) 1.1 1 1.7
Width/Depth Ratio 8.1 8.4 5.5
Entrenchment Ratio >4.0 >4.0 >4.0
Bankfull Width (ft) 8.9 8.3 9.3
Big Pine Creek Cross Section #2
95.0
96.0
97.0
98.0
99.0
100.0
101.0
102.0
103.0
104.0
0 5 10 15 20 25 30
Station (ft)
Elevation (ft)
May 25, 2004 August 4, 2004 As-built July 17, 2003
Flood-Prone Area
Bankfull
*Measurements were taken after above bankfull event.
Cross Section #2 at Station 1+97 - 2003. Photo taken from
right side of channel.
Cross Section #2 – June 2004. Photo taken from left side of
channel.
Cross Section #2 – August 2004. Photo taken from
right side of channel.
Stream Classification
Location: Station 3+31
Year 2003 C4b* stream type (mid point of riffle)
Year 2004 (June) E4b* stream type (mid-point of riffle)
Year 2004 (August) E4b* stream type (mid-point of riffle))
Cross-Section #3 Abbreviated Morphological Summary
2003 2004 2004b*
Bankfull Cross Sectional Area (ft2) 10.7 8.6 17
Maximum Bankfull Depth (ft) 2.5 2 2.4
Bankfull Mean Depth (ft) 0.9 1.2 1.3
Width/Depth Ratio 14.2 5.7 10.8
Entrenchment Ratio >3.0 >3.5 >3.0
Bankfull Width (ft) 12.3 7 13.5
*Measurements were taken after above bankfull event.
Cross Section #2 at Station 1+97 - 2003 Cross Section #2 – August 2004
Big Pine Creek Cross Section #3
92.0
93.0
94.0
95.0
96.0
97.0
98.0
99.0
0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35
Station (ft)
Elevation (ft)
May 25, 2004 August 4, 2004 As-built July 17, 2003
Bankfull
Flood-Prone Area
Cross Section #3 at Station 3+31 – 2003. Photo taken from
right side of channel.
Cross Section #3 – June 2004. Photo taken from right side of
channel.
Cross Section #3 – August 2004. Photo taken from right
side of channel.
Stream Classification
Location: Station 5+99
Year 2003 E4b* stream type (mid point of riffle)
Year 2004 (June) E4b* stream type (mid-point of riffle)
Year 2004 (August) E4b* stream type (mid-point of riffle))
Cross-Section #4 Abbreviated Morphological Summary
2003 2004 2004b*
Bankfull Cross Sectional Area (ft2) 20 13.4 31.1
Maximum Bankfull Depth (ft) 2.3 1.7 3.0
Bankfull Mean Depth (ft) 1.7 1.3 2.0
Width/Depth Ratio 6.6 7.8 7.9
Entrenchment Ratio >3.0 >3.0 >3.0
Bankfull Width (ft) 11.5 10.2 15.8
Big Pine Creek Cross Section #4
84.0
85.0
86.0
87.0
88.0
89.0
90.0
91.0
92.0
0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40
Station (ft)
Elevation (ft)
May 25, 2004 August 4, 2004 As-built July 17, 2003
Flood-Prone Area
Bankfull
*Measurements were taken after above bankfull event.
99 – 2003.
channel.
Cross Section #4 – 2003. Photo taken facing
upstream.
Cross Section #4 – June 2004. Photo taken from right side of channel.
Cross Section #4 – August 2004. Photo taken
from right side of channel.
Cross Section #4 – August 2004. Photo
taken facing upstream. Note that erosion
is under road at the existing water surface.
Stream Classification
Location: Station 7+70
Year 2003 E4b* stream type (mid point of riffle)
Year 2004 (June) E4b* stream type (mid-point of riffle)
Year 2004 (August) E4b* stream type (mid-point of riffle))
*Measurements were taken after above bankfull event.
Cross-Section #5 Abbreviated Morphological Summary
2003 2004 2004b
Bankfull Cross Sectional Area (ft2) 19 12.5 25.4
Maximum Bankfull Depth (ft) 3.5 2.3 2.5
Bankfull Mean Depth (ft) 2.2 1.7 1.8
Width/Depth Ratio 3.9 4.3 7.5
Entrenchment Ratio >4.0 >4.0 >4.0
Bankfull Width (ft) 8.6 7.3 13.8
Big Pine Creek Cross Section #5
79.0
80.0
81.0
82.0
83.0
84.0
85.0
86.0
87.0
88.0
0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40
Station (ft)
Elevation (ft)
May 25, 2004 August 4, 2004 As-built July 17, 2003
Flood-Prone Area
Bankfull
Cross Section #5 at Station 7+70 – 2003. Photo taken from
right side of channel.
Cross Section #5 – June 2004. Photo taken from right side
of channel.
Cross Section #5 – August 2004. Photo taken from right
side of channel.
Longitudinal Profile of Big Pine Creek, Charles Site Madison County, NC (July 17, 2003)
65
70
75
80
85
90
95
100
105
110
0 100 200 300 400 500 600 700 800 900 1000 1100 1200
Channel Distance (ft)
bed water srf BKF x-section
South Fork, Big Pine Creek (Charles Site) May 2004
65
70
75
80
85
90
95
100
105
110
0 200 400 600 800 1000 1200
Channel Distance (ft)
E le va tio n (ft)
bed water srf Terrace --- BKF culvert x-section
South Fork, Big Pine Creek (Charles Site) August 2004
75
80
85
90
95
100
105
110
0 50 100 150 200 250 300 350 400 450 500 550 600 650 700 750 800 850
Channel Distance (ft) Ele v a tio n ( ft) bed water srf Terrace --- BKF --- x-section
APPENDIX C
SITE PHOTOGRAPHS
Vegetation Plot Photographs
Tree Plot A – 2003. Photo taken from right
side of channel looking downstream.
Tree Plot A – 2004. Photo taken from right
side of channel looking upstream.
Tree Plot B – 2003. Photo taken facing
downstream from culvert.
Tree Plot B – 2004. Photo taken facing
downstream from culvert.
Vegetation Plot #1 near Station 0+96 along left
side of channel – 2003.
Vegetation Plot #1 – 2004.
Vegetation Plot #2 within Tree Plot A – 2003.
Vegetation Plot #2 – 2004.
Vegetation Plot #3 within Tree Plot B – 2003.
Vegetation Plot #3 – 2004.
Vegetation Plot #4 near Station 7+00 along
left side of channel – 2003.
Vegetation Plot #4 – 2004.
South Fork Big Pine Creek
Facing downstream at debris jam at Station 0+40
- 2003
Debris jam at Station 0+40 - 2004
2+21 - 2003 Existing center bar at Station 2+21 - 2004
banks at Facing upstream at undercut banks at
Station 5+65 – June 2004
f meander
As-Built Comparisons
Erosion at Station 5+99 along outside of
meander bend – August 2004
Facing upstream at Station 5+99 – August
2004
Facing downstream at pipe outlet at Station
7+70 - 2003
Pipe outlet at Station 7+70 – June 2004
Facing upstream from culvert – pre-monitoring
period
Facing upstream from culvert - 2003
Facing upstream from culvert – June 2004 Facing upstream from culvert – August 2004